IMHO yes.
Your posts about Israel and Palestine always come off as remarkably clear-headed; objective, even. Are your views common among your people? Presumably not among the Orthodox community, but elsewhere?
Even if we assume there was no direct benefit to the US in moving our embassy (along with everyone else) to Berlin from Bonn (as East Germany didn’t exist anymore to contest this), there was no large downside either. This can’t be said of moving our embassy (while not alone, certainly not in conjunction with the majority of other nations) to Jerusalem. So, no real benefit and no real downside verse no real benefit and large negative downside. See the difference?
Not enough trouble in that part of the world just gave big leg up to Iran and now he can send in his expert son in law to fix things.
Actually we’re warning Iran to stop fishing in that region. With Jerusalem recognized Hezbollah will have a far more powerful opponent than a failed Syrian or Lebanese government.
Do you feel we were making a credible threat when we said that or an empty one? If Iran ignores our warning and continues to support local groups, do you feel the United States should follow through by attacking Iran? Do we want to send American troops into a new Middle Eastern war? If we warn Iran not to do something and then don’t act if they go ahead and do it, how will that affect our credibility in future diplomatic situations?
These are the kind of things an American President needs to be thinking about. Every action has consequences and he has to decide if he’s willing to accept those consequences before he takes the action.
Oh yes because the Israelis have more troops because Jerusalem…
This is more nonsensical than the ignorant and false comparison with the Berlin case.
If anything the position of the Hezbullah is the one reinforced by the rejection of the american approach by the other powers relevant in the region. The marginalising of the americans double faced positions only reinforces the Hezbullah and the rejectionists, with more sympathy for them.
What you are suggesting is appeasement, or throwing Israel under the bus, pure and simple. There is no solution acceptable to Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas or ultimately many Arab factions that starts with Israel being a permanent, independent Jewish state.
Piffle.
Refraining from recognizing one party’s claims for a capital in a severely disputed region does nothing to “throw Israel under the bus.” Not even the Likud members would make that claim. The capital situation had remained stable for nearly 70 years. Changing an ongoing situation (for the purpose of creating more hostility) does nothing to improve the situation.
That’s an ironic thing to say, to say the least.
I suggested nothing, I merely pointed out your rhetoric was bizarre and sstupidly empty as the Israeli state gains not one real advantage in the security situation from the action, no one single extra troop or ally. The contrary.
But no, the refraining from such things is not called “appeasement,” it is called ‘diplomacy’ since it is nothing more than refraining from engaging in waste and contraproductive posturing.
The rest of the canned stale rhetoric is boring and serving only to try to distract from your empty posturing that had no sense anyway.
The situation has not been “stable” for 70 years. Four wars on ongoing terror is not stability. If Israel were barbaric Gaza and the Arab portions of the West Bank would have been obliterated long ago.
how telling, the phrase, but it is without doubt there is the coming apologia for the bantustans policies developing.
But again the strawman non response (aobut things not even mentioned or stated…) to try to disguise the complete lack of foundation for the silly assertion replied to.
It is as convincing as your pretenses on the political spectrum alignment.
It’s already here. Likud is already calling for the squatter “settlements” to be annexed, claiming Trump’s support for it.
With no two-state solution possible anymore, that leaves only one state. It can be either democratic or ethnic-supremacist but not both, as the white South Africans eventually realized - and the Bantustan program was what finally toppled that regime.
A two state solution is indeed still possible. Just have the Palestinians led by a Realist instead of a Terrorist.
And to be fair, bring back a less conservative Isreali government.
Look, Isreal for the last 70 years has had total political control over Jerulsalem. Palestine has had none. The fact that Isreal had had this recognized and Palestine now cannot have it’s unrealistic goal doesnt prevent a two state solution.
I am not sure if this was a good idea mind you, but it certainly reflects reality.
Elvis:
Why is it less possible now than it’s ever been before?
Because a state that consists entirely of enclaves divided by another state’s settlements (and security checkpoints for traversing those divisions) isn’t actually a state? Especially when those divisions are MULTIPLYING.
jayjay:
But those can be negotiated away as part of a two-state solution just as easily (or, more accurately, with as much difficulty) as it ever could before. There really isn’t anything that precludes that to any degree that it was ever possible.
The Israelis managed to pull out of all Gaza settlements when they decided to unilaterally withdraw from there. Yes, there’s more of them than there ever were in Gaza, but that’s just a difference in logistics, not a change from possible to impossible.
Minor nit-pick. Israel didn’t have “total control of Jerusalem” between 1948 and 1967.
Seriously? What else do you think the settlements program, and the widespread popular support for it, could possibly mean? How about the wall on Palestinian property?
Maybe it’s time to fire up the bulldozers again.